'More than a hint' that dark energy isn't what astronomers thought
75 comments
·March 20, 2025mr_mitm
I know it makes for a "better" headline, but don't be mislead by it thinking Astronomers actually thought dark energy was a cosmological constant, period. Read section 1.1 of the Euclid review paper from 2016 to get an impression straight from the horses mouth.
> Why then is the cosmological constant not the end of the story as far as cosmic acceleration is concerned? There are at least three reasons.
sigmoid10
Don't confuse accelerated expansion with the cosmological constant. Accelerated expansion's origin is most likely the cosmological constant aka dark energy, but they are not the same thing. The cosmological constant itself arises naturally (kind of how an integration constant emerges for indefinite integrals) when you derive the field equations of general relativity. It is basically a geometric degree of freedom inherent to the Einstein-Hilbert action. Any astronomer who fit any model of the universe to some dataset in the past 25 years was fitting a constant. And even this new paper acknowledges that it will take some tremendous effort to convince people that this constant really is changing over time (which introduces a slew of theoretical issues that need to be explained). It will be particularly interesting to see how (if at all) this can be reconciled with measurements of things like the CMB, because stellar and galactic astrophysics is much less well understood.
mr_mitm
I'm not sure where you got that I'm confusing something. For what's it worth, my name is in the author list of that paper.
sigmoid10
>where you got that I'm confusing something
From the idea that the constant that equates to dark energy in the stress energy tensor is not commonly thought to be a constant. People didn't call it that way as some joke. This isn't even up to astronomers, this is something that mathematicians will tell you. And it could potentially cause some real trouble not just for our models of the universe but for the basic mathematics of relativity if it is changing. Motivating that alone will we hard, not to speak of the consequences down the line.
null
fedeb95
An interesting part from a different article mentioned here in the comments:
The results do not meet the so-called five-sigma threshold of statistical certainty that is the gold standard in physics for claiming a discovery. But many in the collaboration have shifted in recent months from a position of scepticism to confidently backing the finding.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/mar/19/dark-energy-...
mr_mitm
I think it's worth noting that the five sigma standard traditionally comes from particle physics, though. Cosmology doesn't have the luxury of being able to generate arbitrary amounts of data, and in fact has been a precise science for only sixty years or so. Hubble's first measurement of the expansion of the universe was off by a order of magnitude.
rcxdude
That's basically a particle physics threshold, because in particle physics you tend to do many, many experiments (usually you're doing thousands a second). It's hard to get something that certain in astronomy, where you've only got one universe to observe.
gpderetta
It is also an informed threshold. FTL neutrinos where, IIRC, above 6 sigma and nobody believed it was true, while there were strong rumors that Higs had been found well before it hit 5 sigmas.
rcxdude
Yeah, statistical significance can tell you nothing about systematic errors you're unaware of or errors in the statistics itself
null
mellosouls
Lots of non-paywalled coverage out there in the mainstream press, eg:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/mar/19/dark-energy-...
mr_mitm
I think this is also the better article. The other one is all over the place.
misja111
Another observed phenomenon is that the universe expansion (so also dark energy) is not the same in every direction. https://www.nasa.gov/universe/universes-expansion-may-not-be...
thowawatp302
> Dark energy, the new measurement suggests, may not resign our universe to a fate of being ripped apart across every scale, from galaxy clusters down to atomic nuclei.
Wasn’t ‘the universe won’t end in a “big rip” the widely held idea?
mr_mitm
Yes, big rip was clearly disfavored by available data, and heat death ("big freeze") the most likely scenario. I haven't kept up in the past few years, abut AFAIK nothing so far has changed that.
nanna
Side note: NYT have the best illustrators in the business.
sega_sai
All the images there have been prepared by the collaboration, not NYT. I know, since I've made one of those images.
mikkom
And worst web developers it seems, I can't scroll the page.
brador
Every detection capability humans have uses EM. From eyeballs to x rays to red shift.
Step 1 is making a new detector, then we talk about unknown unknowns.
mr_mitm
We measure neutrinos and gravitational waves as well. It's much more difficult though.
Sharlin
In the end, to be fair, we measure both of them with photons (quite literally – GWs with laser interferometry and neutrinos by looking for Cherenkov flashes).
drpossum
This isn't fair because you can claim that any force that isn't EM since that's the primary interaction any of our sense work on.
Your ideas aren't clever or useful. They are just adding noise to any productive discussion. You might as well just say science isn't real because our senses are unreliable or God could have made whatever happen or a wizard did it.
AnimalMuppet
OK, but when I stepped on the scale this morning, I used photons to read what it said. That doesn't mean that I'm detecting EM rather than gravity.
NwpierratorR
For gravitational waves we still rely on EM radiation as it's measured by comparing perpendicular lasers through interferometer.
mr_mitm
I don't that's the kind of gotcha you imply it is. Of course radiation is somehow involved in everything, it's what keeps matter together. We also read off the measurements with our eyeballs, and even if you used some sort of braille system, touching things boils down to EM interaction. The primary probe here is gravitational, any musings beyond that are of little value. I challenge you to even conceive an experiment where your own objection wouldn't apply.
somat
No, it is worse than that, every detection capability humans have is only how em interacts with the electron shell around atoms.
We have done some amazing things in spite of what appears a crippling limitation.
drpossum
Wow, I guess that whole gravitational wave thing and anything with cosmological neutrinos are just hoaxes if I listen to anything you have to say.
timewizard
> If dark energy really is Einstein’s constant, the standard model portends a bleak future: The universe will keep speeding up, forever, becoming darker and lonelier. Distant galaxies will eventually be too far away to see. All energy, life and thought will be sucked from the cosmos.
The laws of thermodynamics pretty much guarantees this anyways does it not?
wantoncl
> The laws of thermodynamics pretty much guarantees this anyways does it not?
Yes, but:
mr_mitm
No, it could also end in a big crunch or big rip scenario. They'd have a finite lifetime of the universe.
flowerthoughts
Thermodynamics says there will be equilibrium, not that it will be all dark. But all the visible stars will run out at some point, and since nothing new can get into that sphere, each place in space will be "dark" at some point.
What about the CMBR, I've never heard anyone say that's decaying, but surely it's not an infinite source of energy?
adrianN
To harness energy you need a gradient. Once everything will be in equilibrium there is no gradient.
mr_mitm
In the standard model, the temperature of the CMBR evolves reciprocally with the scale factor, so it will go to zero.
ben_w
The CMB is red-shifting due to the expansion of the universe. If the big bang was infinite then the CMB is also infinite, but at some point it becomes so redshifted that photons from it have a wavelength larger than the Hubble volume.
Cthulhu_
Sure, but this may be news to the target audience of the article.
TheSpiceIsLife
Still, we’ve got a little while to go before star formation can no longer occur.
Some estimates put the star formation period from 1 to 100 trillion years.
I’d be more concerned about our collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy in four to five billion years.
Sharlin
The collision probably won't do much more than trigger a period of star formation – although that will be accompanied by an increase in supernova frequency as the most massive of the newly-born stars quickly burn out in mere millions of years.
beeforpork
Why would you be concerned? Earth and everything living on it will be long dead by then, and probably gone and swallowed by the sun. And maybe the Sun dies before that, too. So what would be particularly concerning about merging of our galaxy with another one?
Timwi
> Earth and everything living on it will be long dead by then
How do you know? It's not far fetched to think that, if humans don't go extinct in the meantime, they will continue to find ways to shape the world according to their needs. By the time the Sun goes red giant, we may well have found a way to alter the orbit of Earth. By the time the Sun goes supernova, we may be able to move to another star. Who knows.
But let's not get distracted. We need to tackle climate change first. That's our first self-made extinction challenge.
nkrisc
Like two gas clouds colliding, not like two cars colliding.
thom
Were I to have a religion, it would be following the poor, stressed programmer tasked with creating (on some insane deadline) the universe we inhabit. To fix various performance bugs, he (I like to think he's called Colin) had to implement all sorts of hacky workarounds: lazy loading so some information is only calculated when it's observed, a maximum speed of information propagation to enable sharding, a system to insert new nodes in the linked list of spacetime, pushing galaxies apart and ensuring the complex timelines of intelligent species never have to snap together and run on a single instance. The work is constant and unrewarding, but I am thankful to Colin for his work, however mysterious it might seem to us.
jcarrano
They say the deadline was quite literally 6 days. Some of the employees rage-quit and started their own business (they are doing fantastic but work conditions are reportedly hellish). As far as we know, they were still tweaking the physical constants until not long ago.
petargyurov
[BUG #3451249]
Unlimited resource drain caused by conscious blobs of particles (a.k.a humans) invoking recursive thought patterns over their own existence.
Workaround: ponder function can return a feeling of existential dread accompanied by increased weights for headache "sensation", causing blob to terminate process.
Estimate: M
Label: Backend
stodor89
I reckon we're just a bug and Colin doesn't even know about our existence.
doodlebugging
Good thing too. Once Colin finds out, we'll be features that he has to document so that everyone else involved will know to use us or to bypass us.
cmsj
We might even just be a heisenbug in a bug reproducer.
tetris11
Oh. I have a [PR#4519842] that implements a biased value system of labour which should reduce the time available for such patterns to occur, and limit the recursion to a brief few who can embed/summarise such artefacts in written record as a form of memoization.
Should I rebase on your workaround?
flopunctro
This comment reminded me, with a smile, of Scott Alexander's Unsong: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/unsong-available-in-paperba...
IanCal
A very heavy recommendation from me for this.
Hn has no spoiler tags but one of the really big things to me is this https://gist.github.com/IanCal/d9667ae9c6ce15315191a36c6b3af...
DebtDeflation
I once saw the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle described as the result of the simulation creators using an 8 bit variable to store position and momentum combinations which were each themselves 8 bit values.
indigoabstract
Call it professional bias, but I like to think about it as a big VM. If for some reason, things go awry, the (said) programmer will hit the pause button, then diligently go to the last valid snapshot, fix the bug and then get things going again. If this isn't desired, fixing the current mess is also an option.
The time required for fixing bugs isn't really an issue in this case, he can take as long as he likes.
function_seven
VMs are too resource hungry.
No, the many-worlds interpretation shows that our universes are merely containers with copy-on-write behavior :)
indigoabstract
Yeah, could be a giant LMDB, but that's implementation detail :)
I imagine there's some serious optimization involved to make it all fit in memory.
karmakaze
> a maximum speed
It's even hackier than that. Everything moves at c always, if not through space then through time or some combination.
padangitik
I love this comment but I don't understand the "linked list" reference. What aspect of physics/the universe is that referring to? Also why does the maximum speed enable sharding? Struggling with that part too haha.
HappySweeney
It's so space can expand without increasing the Planck length
padangitik
Ohh I think I understand. Thank you!
api
So the first lead coder was this Lucifer guy. Wrote the whole code for the physical universe layer in like days on Red Bull and maybe speed.
Unfortunately he was shady and found to be embezzling from the company so he was fired. Only then did the team actually look at that code. Absolutely incomprehensible mess, and it looked like he left back doors in so he and his pals could manifest weird stuff in the universe and fuck with the inhabitants.
Like get this... a human draws a five pointed star on the ground and says some weird stuff and it trips some code that looks like obfuscated malware that calls out to a dodgy server, but we can't remove it because the whole thing is a giant spaghetti monolith.
The Lord put together a proper team of angelic hosts to rewrite the whole thing using solid software engineering practices, but of course that was aeons ago. But when it finally does ship we will get a new heaven and a new Earth with a whole list of promised features.
Archangel Michael, who is in charge of the project, keeps moving the deadline back, but he says they're making progress. It's a microservice architecture.
doodlebugging
And then there's the kid Jesus who promises us relief from all the skullduggery coded into our existence if we will only agree to subscribe to his Salvation as a Service (SaaS) subscription model.
menschen
[dead]
https://archive.is/H23dH